JESUS LIVING IN MARY:
HANDBOOK OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF ST. LOUIS DE MONTFORT

MAN

Summary

I. Man in the Spiritual Context of the Seventeenth Century:
1. A Christology seen from above: God Alone;
2. Fallen man.
II. Greatness and Misery of Man:
1. The dignity of man;
2. The paradox of man;
3. Radical dependence;
4. Indigence;
5. Self-realization;
6. Consecration;
7. The tension between the ideal and the real.
III. Montforts Passion for the Absolute.

I. MAN IN THE SPIRITUAL CONTEXT OF THE SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY

We cannot expect a systematic doctrinal teaching on the
essence of man from someone who was primarily a missionary and only secondarily an author
on spirituality. Correspondingly, in what follows, we can only try to bring out the basic
features that Montfort lends to his idea of man. In order to throw light on the background
of our subject, we can make two preliminary comments. The first is related to the
Christology that helps to determine Montforts thinking and his concept of man; the
other is related to the general features that seventeenth-century spirituality attributes
to man.

1. A Christology seen from above: God Alone

Montfort moves in the sphere of scholastic theology and
the classical Christology characteristic of it. We must not forget this, even when
considering his treatment of man. Classical Christology starts "above," with
God, and moves down to man. Its starting point is not the Jesus of history but the Eternal
Son made man. The Incarnation of the Son, the understanding of his person and his mission,
derive from the God of the Trinity. Hence the well-known rudiments of scholastic theology:
the Trinity, the Creation, the Fall (original sin), the Incarnation of the Word, who is
true God and true man and who restores humanity to its original sinless state in order to
bring it to eternal life. The initiative belongs to God Alone; man, including even the
Second person in his human form, is considered to be receptive. God the Father sends his
Son into the world so that he might take on human form and accomplish his task in perfect
obedience. The center and the fundamental event with which all the rest begins is the
redemptive Incarnation. The Death/Resurrection is left in the background. This divergence
between Christology in the narrow sense and soteriology reduces both the understanding of
the person of Jesus in his humanity and the extent to which we participate in his destiny,
since salvation is only obtained by the death of Jesus and only the soul that finds itself
in a state of grace at the moment of death is saved. This view of salvation impoverishes
our humanity and devalues history. Consequently, the individual salvation of the soul
constitutes almost the entire content of spiritual life.1

The communal aspect of salvation is scarcely considered.
Similarly, the Church is not considered to be a community of brothers and sisters but,
much more, an alternative society opposed to the world. Montforts spirituality
cannot be studied outside this Christological modelit is the opposite of the
Christology that starts with man and with which we are more familiar. This initial remark
helps to set the question in its proper context.

Finally, Montforts life coincides with the middle of
the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, which increasingly attempted to
explain the universe by reference to the chain of natural causes and laws that can be
expressed in mathematical terms. God has no place in this view of the universe. Theology
must increasingly defend itself against the claim that human reason is independent.
Montfort, too, entered the polemic against this claim, which has certain consequences for
the spiritual life (LEW 84-88; TD 83).

2. Fallen man

Seventeenth-century spirituality, including a certain
concept of man, was more or less influenced in its different formulations by
Augustinianism. St. Augustine had gained great importance among the champions of the
Reformation, and the Council of Trent itself reflected the Augustinian tradition of the
Middle Ages in essential respects. The dispute on the relation between nature and grace,
particularly on the effects of original sin on human nature, is central. Post-Reformation
teaching on the complete ruin of fallen man found new strength in seventeenth-century
France in the system of Baius and, through Molinos and Quesnel, in Jansenism. Against such
teaching, it was necessary to defend the concept of mans freedom under grace and the
universal scope of Gods will to save. The problem of the relation between human
nature and the state of man after the Fall led to extreme responses: the Protestants
depreciated human nature, the Pelagians overestimated it.

Both interpretations are important in the domain of
spirituality. Both agree in saying that man has lost the divine endowment as a consequence
of Adams sin. But while the Pelagians maintain that man is restored to his pure
nature, capable of natural goodness and possessing a healthy will that can resist evil
inclinations and temptations, and even continues to be inclined to love God, the
Protestant position maintains that man no longer possesses any soundness in his nature and
that he is still inclined towards evil. This second opinion was upheld by Augustinianism
and Jansenism, while the first was held by Francis de Sales and the Jesuits.2

Montfort was in touch with both these tendencies. He came
across the more optimistic view through his Jesuit masters of the Collège de Rennes.3
There he was taught the necessity of separation from the world and a negative view of
nature, since love of God and love of the world are irreconcilably opposed. Love of God
renders renunciation, poverty, love of suffering, penitence, and mortification possible
and indispensable.

Still more important was Montforts acquaintance with
the Lettres spirituelles (Spiritual Letters) of the Jesuit mystic J.-J. Surin, of the
school of Lallemant.4 Here Montfort came into contact with the idea of "pure
love," which must be obtained by perfect self-negation, which consists in dying to
everything and to oneself. This ideal and the experience of the infinite greatness of God,
before Whom all creatures are reduced to nothing, led to a depreciation of the creature
but, at the same time, allowed the development of a rich mysticism in the France of the
first half of the seventeenth century.

As for Augustinianism, Montfort became acquainted with it
through the spirituality of the French school and the Oratorians.5 In fact, they did not
profess the opinion that human nature is completely ruined by sin; they entertained,
however, a certain disdain for fallen man, and this disdain appeared in different degrees
in Baius, Jansen, Molinos, and Quesnel. Human love, the enjoyment of creation, the pursuit
of happiness, the whole of human action is seen as bearing the stamp of sin.

This deeply theocentric doctrine emphasizes the
indescribable greatness of God in contrast to the absolute nothingness of man, who cannot
turn directly to God and must consequently incorporate himself in the Son made man and
assimilate himself to Christ in all his "states." Bérulles representation
of mans nothingness had an increasing influence on his successors. For Ch. de
Condren, man has the obligation of denying himself before the infinite greatness of God
and rejecting everything that comes from nature. For J.-J. Olier, the "flesh,"
that is, everything human, deserves only disgust and rejection. Montfort insists (TD 79,
213, 228) that man can do nothing on his own. Mans sanctification can therefore
never be the result of human activity. The first step in the spiritual life will therefore
be universal renunciation and mortification. This is how evil inclinations must be
reduced, permitting God to work in man.

II. GREATNESS AND MISERY OF MAN

With the Oratorians, Montfort maintains mans
nothingness and always reaffirms that man is not capable of saving himself. The initiative
can only come from God Alone. It is He Who is at work in the Incarnation. His Son becomes
man to redeem man. In his representation of the history of salvation as the history of
Eternal Wisdoms love for man, Montfort leaves no doubt that man, even after the
Fall, is the object of Gods love. Man of himself is incapable of goodand here
Montfort is radical, perhaps in reaction to the independent tendency of human reason that
was increasingly asserting itself, claiming to explain everything by its own strength and
power. This attitude has consequences for the spiritual life (TD 83). Is this a loss of
mans dignity (his original nobility)? No. Man remains what he is by his creation at
the hands of Wisdom: "An abridgment of Eternal Wisdoms marvels, his small yet
ever so great world, his living image and representative on earth" (LEW 64).

1. The dignity of man

This dignity is further increased and is perfected by an
"excess of love," thanks to which man is now "a brother, a friend, a
disciple, a pupil, the price of his own blood and co-heir of his kingdom" (LEW 64).
According to Montfort, human dignity does not originate in man himself. Man ultimately
only possesses this dignity because, and as far as, Eternal Wisdom enters into relation
with him. Everything else depends on this relationship; so it is immensely important that
man should be open to this relationship and let himself be loved by Wisdom. In this,
Montfort rises above all moralism and casuistry; in this, too, he justifies his ascetic
effort to establish this relationship of love and to maintain it (LEW 7). His ways of
expressing his "universal mortification" (LEW 194-202) may well be
characteristic of his time, and the unusually severe penitential exercises that he imposed
upon himself might well alarm us, even though Montfort is not unique in this respect. The
important point remains, however, that the relationship to Wisdom is not given
gratuitously; it costs man something, and so man proves his sincere will and his
"ardent desire." Moreover, the words of St. Paul, to the effect that man, in a
world of sin, must always be armed for the spiritual struggle (Eph 6:10-20), remain
valuable. For Montfort, the decisive weapon of the Christian in this fight is the Cross
received with love (LEW 173).

2. The paradox of man

According to Montfort, man after the Fall appears to be a
living paradox. Man does not lose his original essence; sin does not destroy the fact that
God said of his creation and also of man, "It was very good" (Gen 1:31). In
another context, Montfort emphasizes the fact that God is unchanging (TD 15, 22). But sin,
the harm it brings, and the concupiscence that Baptism does not eradicate stresses that
Man, although sharing in Gods life, is different from God. Man cannot resolve
through his own strength this irreconcilable contradiction that he carries within himself.
Ultimately, he can only wait passively and hope that God, instead, might solve it by
making a gift of His creative love in spite of mans resistance.6

It is in the Gospel alone that Montfort sees the
possibility of resolving mans inner contradiction. This possibility lies in the
encounter with Christ, but this encounter must become a permanent alliance. Montfort says
that the aim of all devotion is Jesus Christ (TD 61). Everything depends on knowing Jesus
Christ, a knowledge that Montfort sees as a deepened experience of Jesus Christ, which can
be called truly mystic (LEW 11).

Man turned in on himself, whom Luther calls "homo
incurvatus," i.e. man in a state of sin and without Jesus Christ, is the creature
most worthy of pity; but man united to Wisdom Eternal and Incarnate becomes a
"man-God" (SM 17; 3; TD 157), who by Christ, with him, and in him is capable of
all things (TD 61; 56). In spite of sin, man united to Christ can re-attain what was
originally given to him (PM 18). In Montforts writing, Mary seems to be the very
model of humanity so conceived.

3. Radical dependence

In Montforts thought, union with Christ takes the
form of slavery. By this concept, Montfort characterizes mans dependence on his
Creator and his relation to God, which man broke off through sin. The resulting separation
is overcome if man accepts his dependence on God, and it is precisely by making himself
the slave of Jesus Christ that he recovers his dignity and his freedom. This means that
man imitates the conduct of Jesus Christ, who emptied himself and chose the humility of
slavery so that all men might be freed from the slavery of sin. Man must in turn renounce
his autonomy and recognize Christ as the only Lord.

Montfort goes one step further. Jesus makes himself a
slave in order to assume in every last respect the life of man enslaved by sin (Phil
2:1-7). Sighs and entreaties, sweat and tears, fatigued arms, sadness of heart, and
affliction of the soul: this is the destiny of man in the misery of sin (LEW 41). Clearly,
Montfort is thinking of the living conditions of the poor of his time. He recognizes the
true condition of man in general in the misery and the material and spiritual privation of
men. If he decides to live in the same conditions himself, it is not only from love of
poverty but to share, like Christ, as completely as possible the wretchedness of man the
sinner. In doing so, he overcomes the contrast between rich and poor, which is what people
generally see. For in reality, the rich and the poor live in the same state of
wretchedness. Doubtless, material well-being can clothe and hide this wretchedness, but it
cannot remove it. The experience of the rich Western nations clearly shows this today.
They produce new forms of wretchedness, the wretchedness of anguish that is often
unconscious and very complex and that is caused by the fact that man is no longer self-
assured and no longer knows exactly who he is. It is necessary, however, to know who we
are if life is not to become absurd. And man only reaches this knowledge, according to
Montfort, through his encounter with Eternal Wisdom, Jesus Christ. It is only in his union
with Christ that man discovers the truth of what he is. What must be done first of all,
and constantly thereafter, is to listen to those words of God which form the fundamental
traits of the picture of man according to the Bible (LEW 30).

4. Indigence

Mans powerlessness to obtain salvation through his
own strength and his inability to reach the goal of Jesus Christ, Eternal Wisdom, justify
for Montfort the necessity of a mediator with the Mediator himself (TD 83). It is an
obligation, a necessity for man to use the help God offers him (TD 84). Of all these means
of help, Mary has precedence, because she is Mother of Grace, "royal throne of
Eternal Wisdom" (TD 27-44; LEW 208). But above all, it is she who produced the Head
of the Mystical Body and who also produces its members (SM 12). The connection between
Christ, Mary, and the Christian is based, according to Montfort, in the mystery of the
Mystical Body of Christ. The consequence that he draws is that the Christian is the slave
of Jesus Christ and, by analogy, he is also the slave of Mary (TD 70). This means that man
essentially depends on Jesus Christ not only as his Creator but also as his Redeemer. This
dependence is part of the definition of man according to Montfort.

5. Self-realization

In Gods plan of salvation, the Redeemer comes to man
through Mary, and Mary, by her fiat, shares in the Incarnation and at the same time in the
Redemption. Thus man depends on Mary, on her fiat. This is a dependence of another type
(TD 74) but no less wide in scope. In Gods order of salvation, Jesus is de facto and
always the Master of life, and Mary is de facto and always Mother and Mistress of life,
whether man grasps it or not. But then, man only finds and realizes himself by accepting
this dependence, which is always there from the start, and by living it out consciously.
This is what happens in Montforts Consecration to Jesus Christ through Mary. This is
where the baptized draw the only possible and reasonable conclusion, in view of the
wretchedness of their sin, their inability to save themselves, and the order of salvation
as it is given by God. By recognizing their complete dependence on Jesus and Mary, by
placing all that they possess in their hands, the baptized make themselves consciously
dependent, radically so from every point of view; but it is precisely in this way that
they attain true freedom, the freedom of the children of God (TD 169; 170; 215; SM 41).
Consecration in the form of slavery as intimated by Montfort signifies the most perfect
realization of human freedom, for it implies an explicit choice and a freeand thus
lovingacceptance of the relation to Christ that is accomplished in Baptism.

6. Consecration

According to Montfort, this relation to Christ, properly
conceived, implies a relation to Mary, a relation brought about by the order of salvation
as it is given to us. Montfort characterizes this relation by saying that everything must
be done "through Mary, with Mary, in Mary and for Mary" (TD 257; SM 46-49). This
is perfect Consecration. This unreserved giving to Mary implies letting oneself be formed
and led by her in all things (TD 219-221, 258-259; SM 16-18). The aim of such giving is to
attain the full stature of Christ (LEW 214; TD 33). In other words, it must lead the
Christian to spiritual maturity. It is a long path, a lifelong one in most cases. It can
be described as a slow and continual transformation of Baptismal grace. It draws its life
from the existential experience of the love of God, calling man to an unconditional
response, to the irrevocable giving of himself. This is a path of self-surpassing, which
continually grows at all levels of human consciousness and finds its highest expression in
a love that forgets itself. This Consecration encompasses "our body with its senses
and members," i.e. the self with its faculties; "our soul with its
faculties," i.e. the self as the deepest place of human motivation; "our
interior and spiritual possessions." These are not necessarily to be sacrificed but
are used according to the criterion of love (TD 121). In this love which gives
unreservedly, human life attains a sovereign authenticity in its conformity with
Christs love.

Similarly, the unreserved and definitive gift of self
corresponds to the way mans personality is structured. One can also judge a
mans maturity according to how far he has learnt to give himself in this way.

Man can only become himself in the interpersonal relations
that are realized through the giving and receiving of authentic love. An authentic
relationship reaches its highest expression in mutual giving of one to another, in which
both parties discover themselves as people in the reciprocal act of giving that unites
them. The "I" becomes complete when it gives itself to a "you"; and
the more successful this act of giving, the more self-aware man becomes. This giving of
oneself through love is also the core of Christian love, both the love of God and love of
ones neighbor. This love must lead to giving oneself because its ideal model is
Christ.7

7. The tension between the ideal and the real

In Montforts thinking, man is characterized by a
deep internal tension between the ideal of the human being as God created him (LEW 35-38)
and the reality of human life, which, in Montforts eyes, is so marked by the
consequences of sin. This is a deep and permanent human experience: it can be detected in
the tension inherent in every human life, which is torn between the infinite aspirations,
desires, and thinking of man and the finite nature and the limitations of the human
conditionboth experienced simultaneously. How will man manage this tension, which is
not easy to bear? This is the crux of the matter. The answer lies in his life having a
meaning and being a success.8 Mans own inclination to avoid as far as possible all
injury to his sense of self-worth does not make the task any easier. This is where we can
detect those subtle forms of selfishness of which Montfort is speaking when he remarks
that even the most disinterested and noble conduct is tainted with self-love (TD 78).
Montfort turns forcefully against the temptation, ever present and so strong, to do away
with the tension between the ideal and real life, between desire and moderation. How do
people attempt to do this? Simply by making man alone responsible for his safety and
well-being. This is the ultimate temptation, which urges man to make himself the center of
the universe and claim to be omnipotent, at least to a certain point. To have all that one
wants, to possess all that one desires, to receive instant satisfaction of every wish, to
seek continually to assert ones own superiority: this is what Montfort calls the
wisdom of the world (LEW 75-82), which he rejects categorically. For flight from the
fundamental tension of human life into the illusion of human omnipotence results in man
becoming a slave to himself.

For Montfort, the reality of the Incarnation also opens up
a path that permits us to work with this tension. In fact, the Incarnation implies that it
is not any human urge towards transcendence that is at the beginning of things but a
movement of condescension on the part of God, which long precedes mans religious
needs. This divine condescension signifies that in the person of His Son become flesh, God
submits himself to human limitations down to their last detail (LEW 70; TD 17- 19; 243).
The Cross becomes the highest point of this tension in the life of God made man. It is
also the powerful call to the believer to make the decisive choice; this choice does not
do away with the tension we have already mentioned but, instead, means accepting and
bearing it. For the Cross and the Resurrection finally reveal that it is not man, but God
Alone Who fulfills the infinite aspirations of the human heart and makes it overcome its
own limits.

Montfort builds his spirituality on this image of man,
which he bases on the fundamental claims of the Bible, making of man a being who receives,
who is laden with giftsin stark contrast to man as he is seen by those who do not
believe. This does not mean that he reduces man to a so-called mystic level, as if man
could simply sit back and do nothing. But it remains true (and perhaps this is one of the
sources of difficulty that people experience with the person and thinking of Montfort)
that for him, mans existence is a reality defined by receiving: life is a pure gift
of God. When man is no longer prepared to accept his role as recipient, when he no longer
recognizes God as the eternal beginning and the goal of his life and prefers to live
according to his own means, he falls into that frenzy of activity that began with original
sin. Its destructive effects appear more and more worrying as the end of the twentieth
century approaches, and in all aspects of life: in the way man organizes his own life, in
the dissoluteness of social life, in the thoughtless pillaging of creation.

Whoever enters into Montforts spirituality feels he
is being invited to change his idea of man, to renew it by taking Revelation into account.
This takes him onto the difficult path that leads from the old to the new Man. In the
tension between infinity and the finite, he discovers and lives out the possibilities of
life that God offers to him.

III. MONTFORTS PASSION FOR THE ABSOLUTE

The tension between the infinite and the finite, between
the ideal and the reality of human existence, marked Montforts life deeply. The key
trait of his character was his thirst for the absolute. This included his unshakable
passion for God Alone, which already appeared in his earliest years and in which he strove
to combine all his energies as he increased in age and maturity. The same aspiration to
the absolute, which leaves no space for mediocrity, imbued his personality as it
developed. The question has been raised whether this inclination was strengthened by
mental conflicts, caused according to some by Montforts unsuccessful identification
with his own father. Given the relatively small number of documents on which such an
argument might be based, it is better to leave the question open.9 What is more decisive
here is that Montforts inclination was strengthened, on the one hand, by his
spiritual guides and his reading, which inculcated the ideal of Christian perfection and
of pure love, and, on the other hand, by his discovery of the radical nature of the
Gospel. Montfort was constrained to take the Gospel literally, with all the consequences
this entails. This appeared quite clearly when he followed Jesus command literally:
"Let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me" (Lk
9:23). Montfort lived out this renunciation so completely that he caused people to accuse
him of despising himself. In this he was influenced by the generally accepted way of
thinking of the time: human nature is spoiled; we must suppress all its manifestations.
But what appeared to be contempt of self was, rather, that forgetfulness of self whose
model is the kenosis of God made man. And it was to become increasingly so.

It is important to live out the ideal of poverty just as
radically; for Montfort, poverty is not only renunciation of material goods but
renunciation of support of any kind in this world. For him, this is the sign and the
starting point of an unshakable trust in Divine Providence. The same aspiration towards
the absolute marks his spiritual life. Prayer was to occupy every free moment of his time;
penance and bodily mortifications were to exceed the normal by far, both in quantity and
form. This passion for the absolute urged Montfort to advance always further. But it also
became the place where he experienced his limitations, both internal and external. He had
to recognize that this passion, if it was not wisely controlled by him and no one else,
would lead him to the limit of his strength and even jeopardize his life. He was
constrained to recognize that it made of him an eccentric, fitting into no recognizable
mold, because he exceeded the bounds of what was held to be good behavior in his milieu,
and that by the same token it necessarily provoked incomprehension, rejection, and
opposition. His impulsive, ardent temperament, led him to commit actions that were not
only admirably brave but sometimes ill thought out and exaggerated and thus led him to be
thought of as eccentric. The difficulties and failures of his life were caused by this.
Montfort was forced to admit that he harmed himself by his singular qualities.

The conversation that Montfort had with his friend Blain
less than two years before his death helps us to understand his personality. It shows us
that Montfort was aware of the problem and that he made considerable efforts to eliminate
his quirks.10 Des Bastières, who worked with him for eight years, stated that Montfort
managed to control his aggressive tendencies and use them constructively.11 On this point,
his ever- stronger closeness to Christ helped him greatly; indeed, this closeness
increased in moments of crisis. His vital aim, to become like Christ and reach the full
stature of Christ, led him to discover the gentleness and goodness of Jesus (LEW, chap. 10
and 11; LS 32-35). He made them increasingly his own, and this earned him the title
"good Father Montfort."

His closeness to Christ also permitted him to confront the
danger of quietist passivity and to transform the passive obedience that he had been
taught at Saint-Sulpice into active obedience. Obedience remained a particular virtue for
him, in the sense that God Alone takes the initiative. But for Montfort that does not mean
that we need do nothing. On the contrary, we must "listen to God with humble
submission; act in him and through him with persevering fidelity . . . inspire others with
that love for Wisdom which will lead them to eternal life" (LEW 30). It is in this
sense of obedience that man can realize the essence of Christian action and its ideal of a
life according to the Gospel and according to the example of the Apostles. Then he takes
on the ambition to make his life conform to the "wisdom of the Apostles."12 Even
if this means he will be accused of eccentricity. Here he expresses a high degree of
self-confidence, as long as he is under the sovereign working of God; but this does not
remove his suspicion of the malice of human nature and makes him hold firm to his rigorous
penances and mortification of the body. But he can appeal to the example of numerous
saints in this connection.

Humanity, as seen by Montfort, is characterized by a
profound inner tension. Montfort neither sought to eliminate this tension, nor to
accommodate himself to it (except when it threatened his lifes ideals) nor did he
take refuge in some extremism which saw nothing good outside of itself. Retaining his
passion for the absolute, he realized, often painfully, that he could not divorce himself
from reality. He knew that he had to remain in touch with the concreteness of his life,
especially of himself as a person. This did not result in a lazy compromise for him.
Rather it permitted him to identify his own ideals in given situations. Thus he avoided
making his personal need for the absolute a framework of reality for others. Thus he was
able to perceive the value of differing spiritual choices and directions. He succeeded in
reconciling his passion for the infinite with the limitations of inner and outer reality.
His life was ever more imbued with this resolve: to expect everything from God and His
Holy Mother.